GRANT V. STOP-N-GO MARKET OF TEXAS, INC.
994 S.W.2d 867 (1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Grant (P) appealed an order granting summary judgment to Stop (D) on
P's suit for false imprisonment and defamation.
FACTS: P went to D with his girlfriend. His girlfriend stayed in the car, and P paid for
a can of beer, and then decided he wanted to buy some potato chips. He left the bag with the
can of beer on the counter, and picked out two bags of potato chips which were marked on
sale, two for 99 cents. P returned to the clerk and laid both bags of potato chips on the
counter along with a one-dollar bill. The store clerk rang up the chips at 69 cents each. P
told the clerk that the chips were on sale. The store clerk said something to P, but P did
not understand what was said because the clerk spoke with a heavy foreign accent. The store
clerk and P went back to the chip display. The clerk told D that the chips he selected were
not on sale, but that another brand was on sale. P thought the clerk was wrong, he decided
to buy the brand that the clerk said was on sale because he was in a hurry. As the clerk
began to total the price for the two bags of chips, P noticed someone leaning through the
window of his car and apparently talking to his girlfriend. P went to the door to make sure
she was alright. P picked up the one-dollar bill which he had previously laid on the
counter. P opened the door to the store with his right hand and held the dollar bill in his
left hand. After determining that the person leaning on his car was an acquaintance, P
returned to the counter, paid for the two bags of chips, and began to walk out of the store.
Just as P reached the door, the store manager, Calhoun came from the back of the store,
grabbed him by the arm, and said words to the effect, 'he (the clerk) is doing his job well,
let's talk about the cigarettes that you stole.' Calhoun made the accusation loud enough
that all the patrons in the store heard what he was saying. Calhoun said words to the
effect, 'everything was on a surveillance videotape and there is nothing to talk about.' P
denied stealing any cigarettes. Calhoun thought P's attitude was hostile and somewhat
threatening, and so he decided to call the police to investigate the matter. He said he
feared a confrontation with P. Calhoun said that when he told P he was going to call the
police, P responded by saying to go ahead and call the police. P and the officer viewed the
surveillance video. P told the officer he had picked up a dollar before stepping out the
door. Calhoun told the officer he thought the object P picked up looked like a pack of
cigarettes. Calhoun gave the officer the surveillance video, and then the officer left the
store with P. P was never directed to remain in the store, and P was not put in or asked to
go to a back room. D did not produce the video at trial. The police took P to the station to
view the videotape. After reviewing the tape, the police determined the allegations against
P were unfounded and released him. A police officer said the videotape was returned to
Stop-N-Go. The court gave summary judgment to D and P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment